Jury in Inquest of de Menezes told what verdict to deliver!

[Softus]

I can make such a statement without implying that this inquest should apportion blame.

I really don't see how you, or anyone, can.

Don't you? Oh well.

...unless, of course, it's an incorrect statement, in which case it's easy to make it.

How many interpretations are there of "blood on his hands"?

I don't know. You tell me.

OK - I can tell you that the answer is "one".

And how many of those interpretations don't involve blaming?

I refer you to the answer I gave a moment ago.

And the answer to this one is "none".

The lad was NOT lawfully killed.

If a trial jury reached that conclusion then you would be correct, however this is an inquest, and I'm not aware of any trial verdict.

Its my opinion.

You seem to hold that opinion without having any understanding of the legal process, and yet you're commenting on the legal process. Perhaps by the time you reach voting age you'll have become better informed.

 

[Blasphemous]

Perhaps by the time you reach voting age you'll have become better informed.

Whey Hey! somebody has yanked Softus' chain this evening! You assumed wrong Softus. Its been a LOOOONG time since I saw 18..... unfortunately! If I had the chance, I'd like to be 20 again. No real reason, I was just having a good time back then. But that was over 20 years ago! Jeezaz!...20 years ago !!!! Where's that razor blade?

Anyway, this case (read whole episode), has touched me somewhat. I am man enough to admit I have said a few things I shouldn't have Softus. I am fully aware of the legal process and the procedures of an Inquest. I have let my emotions run riot slightly on this one (unlike me....well!).

Now get to bed you young crabby grumpy git!

 

[WDIK]

You seem to hold that opinion without having any understanding of the legal process, and yet you're commenting on the legal process. Perhaps by the time you reach voting age you'll have become better informed.

theres a difference between physical age and interlectual age

 

[Blasphemous]

You seem to hold that opinion without having any understanding of the legal process, and yet you're commenting on the legal process. Perhaps by the time you reach voting age you'll have become better informed.

theres a difference between physical age and interlectual age

Did that bloke down the pub tell you that too?

 

[Softus]

Fair comments, Blasphemous - sleep tight.

 

[blondini]

[blondini said]

Here is the written verdict direction issued to the jury by Sir Michael Wright:

You have to decide between two available short-term verdicts...

I highlighted the words 'short-term verdicts' because it appears that the verdict will not be considered to be final.

 

[blondini]

The jury have returned an open verdict. Haven't seen a full list of their answers yet, but...

A majority of the jury said that they did not believe officers had shouted "armed police" before opening fire.

they said they believed he had stood up from his seat before being shot - but they did not believe he had moved towards the first officer to open fire.

 

[tim west]

With only the two choices the jury chose the only option they could in the circumstances, it just goes to prove you cant beat the system even if the evidence suggests otherwise and all the open verdict means is it will be forgotten about within a few years and no one will be held responsible.
Another costly "going through the motions" exercise.

The only good thing to come out of it will be to show everyone around the world what a joke our justice system is.

 

[ellal]

Amazing how many times we find a civilian with police bullets in them, but no-one is ever to blame..

 

[tim west]

Yep, Stephen Waldorf 26 shot five times in the head and body whilst sitting in a mini in Earls Court in 1983

 

[Softus]

With only the two choices the jury chose the only option they could in the circumstances, it just goes to prove you cant beat the system even if the evidence suggests otherwise and all the open verdict means is it will be forgotten about within a few years and no one will be held responsible.

It means nothing of the sort.

This was an inquest, not a public enquiry or a trial.

Another costly "going through the motions" exercise.

No (sign), the law requires that an inquest is held in circumstances like these.

The only good thing to come out of it will be to show everyone around the world what a joke our justice system is.

The inquest has nothing to do with the justice system.

Why do people not get this?

 

[blondini]

Softus is correct of course, but what will happen next? Why did the coroner use the words 'choice of temporary verdicts' when instructing the jury?

 

[tim west]

Why a jury at an inquest?? to make a decision, why a verdict?? To decide who was to blame, who pays for it?? we do, another costly waste of time.
Justice system?? No justice in this case!

Call it what you will

 

[blondini]

From the website of the Stockwell Inquest.

Role of the Coroner.

Coroners are usually lawyers but in some cases they may be doctors. Coroners are independent judicial officers - this means that no-one can tell them or direct them as to what they should do but they must follow the laws and regulations which apply to Coroners.

A Coroner enquires into those deaths reported to him or her. It is the Coroner’s duty to find out the medical cause of the death, if it is not known, and to enquire about the cause of it if it was due to violence or otherwise appears to be unnatural. There are a number of occasions when a death will be reported to the Coroner e.g. when no doctor has treated the deceased during his or her last illness or when the death was sudden or unexpected or unnatural.

An Inquest is a factual inquiry to find out who has died, and how, when and where they died, together with information needed by the registrar of deaths, so that the death can be registered.

An Inquest is not a trial. It is a limited inquiry into the facts surrounding a death. It is not the job of the Coroner to blame anyone for the death, as a trial would do.

A Coroner normally sits alone, although the law does require a Coroner to sit with a jury in a limited number of circumstances including: if the death occurred in prison or in police custody or if the death resulted from an incident at work.

 

[Softus]

Softus is correct of course

Of course.

but what will happen next?

What do you mean?

Why did the coroner use the words 'choice of temporary verdicts' when instructing the jury?

I don't know.

Why a jury at an inquest?

Because a coroner is required to convene a jury in cases where the death occurred in prison, police custody, or in circumstances which may affect public health or safety. In other circumstances, a jury is optional.

to make a decision, why a verdict?

Because, in this country, a decision made by a jury is called a verdict.

FYI, the decision made the coroner, when not assisted by a jury, is also called a verdict.

To decide who was to blame

You seem confused. The purpose of the inquest, and the remit of the coroner, is both to inquire into and, where possible, to determine, the cause and circumstances of death.

who pays for it?

Who pays for what?

we do, another costly waste of time.

If you think inquests are a waste of time, then why have you waited until now to object? The correct process is to ask your MP to table a question in the H of C. If there is majority support for abolishing inquests then the law will be changed.

Justice system?? No justice in this case!

For you to correctly assert that there's no justice, you'd have to know if a decision has been taken not to prosecute the people who caused the death. Please share that knowledge with the rest of us.

Call it what you will

I call an inquest "an inquest", and I call a trial "a trial". What do you call them?